Talk:Groton School
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Groton School Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Template:Connected contributor User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThisTemplate:Archives
Pierre de Coubertin in Groton School
Description of a visit in his 1890 book Universités transatlantiques pages 122-126. Available on wikisource. Hektor (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Housekeeping -- Fixed
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Hi there, I directly edited the page previously but I'm trying to avoid that going forward. Would someone remove the paragraph on squash national championships? It relies on another Wikipedia page for support, which I believe implicates WP:CIRCULAR.
The line about Groton-St. Mark's being the fifth-oldest high school football rivalry also relies on the Wikipedia oldest high school rivalries page. You might consider adding a citation to <https://blogs.usafootball.com/blog/6512/the-oldest-high-school-football-rivalries-in-the-u-s>, although this citation appears to be derivative of the previously-mentioned Wikipedia page. Alternatively, you might consider adding a citation to <https://www.mysouthborough.com/2014/11/06/st-marks-2nd-longest-prep-school-gridiron-rivalry-in-the-nation/>, which says that Groton-St. Mark's is the second-oldest prep school football rivalry. Thanks in advance for your consideration! (tagging GuardianH and Melchior2006) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.123.7 (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC) <templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" /> |
The following conversation took place on a different talk page but is being moved here for reference.
Extended content
|
|---|
|
I deleted this addition because it reads like a promotional laundry list. I find this content irrelevant for an encyclopedia and it looks a lot like boosterism. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
|
Lede
Extended content
|
|---|
|
@GuardianH, I saw you edited the lede on grounds of WP:UNDUE, saying that there wasn't any support in the body for the acceptance rate ranking. Given that almost nothing in the lede (not just the acceptance rate ranking) was reflected in the body, I edited the body to include tuition, financial aid, and endowment information, similar to Phillips Academy, Phillips Exeter Academy, Hotchkiss School, etc etc etc. (I also think a more practical way of addressing the concern you raised is to move the relevant information into the body instead of deleting it from the lede, but it is what it is.) I've also put the acceptance rate ranking information in the body and updated it for 2024, although as you can see, I am not 100% sure about the methodology. I also streamlined the campus section and moved around some photos, none of which should be controversial. Let me know if you have any further proposals about the lede. Stylistically, the last paragraph is pretty bare, so without some additional point of note, it probably makes sense to add more alumni. Thanks for considering my comments. Courtesy ping for @Melchior2006. |
1939 football photo
@User:Zhenshiwenben, thanks for your contributions to the Groton page. It's much appreciated. I'm concerned about a potential copyright violation for the 1939 football photo. Could you kindly clarify where you got it? I normally assume that any photographs taken after 1928 are copyrighted.
209.122.123.7 (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bought the photo at auction. Written details on back of frame match NYT article now added as citation. No photographer attribution information is available on the photo or online. No similar image exists in Google or on Bing.
- With no photographer attribution information available, I understood that the copyright expires—
- 1. at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made (1939), or
- 2. if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available
- If I am mistaken, then I will post the image to Wikipedia in 2035. Zhenshiwenben (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt your photo is safe to use, although I hope I'm wrong. Wikimedia Commons says that "Mere physical ownership of an original artwork such as a painting does not confer ownership of the copyright: that remains with the artist."
- @Tacyarg, could we please get a second opinion? 209.122.123.7 (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Ping Re-pinging - I think I might have messed up the formatting the first time. Very sorry to be a bother. Could we kindly get a second opinion on the 1939 photograph? 209.122.123.7 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Zhenshiwenben - I think the safe thing to do is to remove the 1939 photo. I am sorry, but I think it's best to be safe with this sort of thing. I really appreciate your gracious response from earlier. Wishing you the best. 209.122.123.7 (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for your assistance. Sorry for the trouble. I will post the image to Wikipedia in 2035 if I can. Zhenshiwenben (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)